In the era of time we are considering rifles were tools for skirmishers and snipers. These troops normally did not stand in formation and fire volly as did normal troops.
The normal means of combat being volly fire and a final charge with the bayonet, with the best disciplined army being victorious, muskets were simply an evolution of the pike. A simple platform on which to mount the bayonet, and ability to launch a projectile being secondary in their role as a weapon.
I feel dearborn is using the term "expediant" to mean needed or necessary. Bayonets were not necessary on weapons used by scouts, skirmishers and snipers.
I have seen the adoption of several weapons systems since I was old enough to realize what was going on (as in might be holding one of the weapons in self defense some day). Dearborn's requirements are the most sensable and shortest stipulations that I have ever read. The weapons designed by Dearborn (and Lewis?) served the U.S. as the main rifle (not main battle weapon) for the nest 20 years.
Weapons systems are often labeled by the year of their trial or design, not issue. Some weapons are ahead of their time, some obsolete when adopted. The M-16 was "experimental" for 11 years before adoption. It has been the standard issue for 37 years and some of us still expect to have wood stocks on our rifles!
The 1803 was a departure from the norm, a glimpse of things to come. Equiped with a half stock, an iron rib, shorter than a normal rifle and larger in bore than the civilian trend of that day.
As distinctive and different from civilian weapons as they were, the 1803 model would have drawn attention everywhere it went. There would have been newspaper reports about the "new rifles", journal entries and diary entries by people along the path of the expidition that were allowed to fire the experimental guns as the troop floated down the Ohio (they commented on everything else). None of the members of the expidition seem to take note of their possession of a "new and/or unusual rifle" and none of the visitors mention the group being unusually equiped. They do mention the "trick gadgets" like the air rifle, so they were taking note. (the air rifle was not just a toy, they killed buffalo with it!)
None of the expidition members make note of the rifles being of unusual or experimental form. Lewis and Clark both make extensive and precise journal entries on the performance of all of the equipment, flora, fauna and people they encountered on the journey. If part of their expidition was a test of an experimental rifle they would have percisely refered to the rifles and made comment as such.
"The new model rifles proved satisfactory/unsatisfactory in design and performance"
"We are quite pleased/displeased with the performance of the new model rifles in all situations"
"The locks on the new model rifles will need improvement/bigger flints/redesign before they are issued to the troops"
"The bores on the new rifles are too big/small"
No specific referances beyond the normal comments on the use of their rifles are made that I find in the journals.
They would have probably been expected to file a complete report on the rifle performance on their return. They did not.
If I were Dearborn, and had just designed a new rifle, I would have expected my creations to have been returned to the Harper's Ferry for evaluation at the end of the expidition. Return was not a problem, the expidition shipped tons to samples back east. I would have wanted them disassembled and inspected for their performance and survival potential in the field. Instead, the weapons used in what would have been the most important "field test" in history were sold at auction for $.50 each!
I have read some of the congressional debate over the fittings used on the military weapons of that era. Those guys would fight duels over the use of brass instead of steel for the trigger plate! Dearborn would have wanted this information.
I personally feel that all of the evidence points toward the reworking of contract rifles to a uniform bore size and installation of locks with interchangable parts. The rifles looked just like any other rifle of the time, only a bit shorter. That's why they were refered to as the "short rifles", not the new model rifles/experimental guns.
If the model used had been a radical change, as was the 1803 mod, people along the way and expidition members would have made extensive comments. Lewis and Clark would have returned the examples for evaluation and/or submitted an extensive test report.
This is my opinion, I could be wrong, I have been before. (gosh,
Stumpy and Musket Man will both read that!!) This is just what the existing paperwork, that I have read so far, proves too me.
